Law Template‑class
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

United States Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

i think that all the Amendments are very important i never knew there was 27 of them. the president should make more laws for others to follow even though people now dont follow any rules or laws we make but the president needs to make more n powerful laws

The president doesn't make laws. Congress does. Why is this on a template talk page? --Gustavo Chapman 3rd of Normandy 20:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Looks like some random person felt like using the talk page for a personal (and strange) thought, nothing more. --CapitalR 23:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I add to the random and strange thought then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.122.237.6 (talk) 21:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Amendments, as well as body of Constitution do not "provide" rights. Rights are acknowledged and protected or ignored. That is the primary difference between U.S. and all other governments. Our foundation is that we "are endowed by our Creator with unalienable rights" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oyancey (talk • contribs) 17:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You guys are welcome to chat on my talk page Maccore Henni _{Mii! Pictochat Mii!} 00:04, 28 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This "infobox" has a lot of overlap with Template:US Constitution. While there is some utility to having all the sections of the constitution accessable on the side: homiegee

1. Do we need the overlap?
2. Specific information, especially on the amendments would be very useful.

For instance, I had to look through the page to find the ratification date of the 20th Amendment. I think that, along with the date it was proposed by Congress, should be in the infobox for all amendments. And of course, the original Constitution also has such dates.—Tox 21:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I'll agree with adding the dates of proposal and ratification. Those were actually in the original template when I created it, but i removed them because I didn't have enough time to go fill in all the information in each amendment. You can re-add the fields if you like, as I think they make the infobox more useful. --CapitalR 01:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I agree that this infobox is 100% overlap of the Template:US Constitution. A few thoughts: Template:US Constitution was created several years ago and has served quite nicely, this infobox is only a few months old; Template:US Constitution is much more informative, this infobox is limited; Template:US Constitution is more of a "macro" navbox and is well suited for the bottom of the page, this infobox is more of a "micro" navbox. With that being said, this topic truly demands quality navigation and this infobox does look quite sharp. Therefore, I would propose removing the "micro" aspects of the Constitution from Template:US Constitution (basically remove everything above the horizontal line) and keep this infobox minus the wikisource links which should be moved to Template:US Constitution. This infobox would then serve as the navigation for the elements of the Const. while Template:US Constitution will serve as the navigation for the entire series on the Const. Comments?--Old Hoss 08:20, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Yeah, I could agree with that proposal above. I created the sidebar infobox a few months ago after finding it very difficult to quickly navigate the Constitution articles, and after getting complaints from others that it was too difficult to find the complete text. As long as we keep it easy to do that, I'm all for any changes that others want to make. --CapitalR 16:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I went ahead and was bold and made the above changes, we'll see how it does.--Old Hoss 03:55, 9 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI, this isn't an infobox, but a Navigational template. Regards, Severo^TC 00:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

((editsemiprotected)) Please modify this sentence:

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a national religion by the Congress or the preference of one religion over another, non-religion over religion, or religion over non-religion.

to:

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of a national religion by the Congress. "Religion" in this case is narrowly defined as the preference of one sect of religion over another.

Why:

The first amendment does not address religion over non-religion. Furthermore,its historical meaning is that the Congress shall not establish a particular sect of Christianity over another. This was a direct effect of the English government breaking from the Catholic church and establishing the Church of England as the religion of the land - which led to religious oppression. It does not address the "macro" issue of the belief in God or a creator. In fact the founding documents, including the Declaration of Independence specifically note a creator that we get our rights from.

Please note, this is NOT coming from a religious point of view. I am a constitutional scholar. I am not out to start or get involved in a religious debate!

Anthraxian (talk) 16:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Your own work as a constitutional scholar is not sufficient for Wikipedia's policy of verifiability; see also "no original research". --Darkwind (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

)

I'm considering adding the proposed but unratified amendments to the category box in the following format:

n. (Name)

Where n would be the number of the amendment the proposed article would have been if it had passed at the time it was proposed Thus:

• I. Congressional Apportionment Amendment
• XIII. Titles of Nobility Amendment
• XIII. Corwin Amendment
• XX. Child Labor Amendment

and so on.Graham1973 (talk) 23:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To be consistent with United States Code Title 48, Judiciary, and the legal distinction between United States and United States of America, the spelling "state" refers to one of the 50 associated compact states of the United States of America, and "State" refers to the territories and possessions of the Corporation in the District of Columbia. This distinction has been all but forgotten since the bankruptcy of United States in 1933 when the states started participating in the issuance of commercial paper and the "people" entered into an association with limited liability to discharge their debts (pass their debts on) in exchange for federal benefits, principally social security.

michael@alexander-web.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.142.30.100 (talk) 04:43, 5 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could someone put the XVIII Amendment in italics since it has been repealed, this is standard MOS for such things. Thanks, Voomie (talk) 01:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Done --Cybercobra (talk) 03:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There needs to be some clearer indication of that, it may be "standard" for lawyers, but it looked like a typo to me. I checked here before "correcting" it though. --Mirokado (talk) 13:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

there is a mispelling in "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

"DEFENCE" SHOULD BE DEFENSE

Testdrivetech (talk) 00:59, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done It was spelled "defence" in the original text. --CapitalR (talk) 02:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Rhode Island was not the state that ratified the constitution, New Hampshire was. Please change. 166.205.142.101 (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• This talk page is for ((US Constitution article series)); I believe your request pertains to another page. If you're talking about United States Constitution, the article states that Rhode Island was the 13th and final state to approve the constitution, which is true. It does not state that Rhode Island was the state that made the constitution come into effect. If this is incorrect in a different article, let me know and I can help you fix it. --CapitalR (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Success is misspelt, in "unsuccessful amendments" near the bottom of the template. Please change "unsucessful amendments" to "unsuccessful amendments" because, well, it's not spelled correctly. 72.42.190.226 (talk) 04:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Fixed It was a typo in the piping. Dru of Id (talk) 04:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

On this 13th Amendment page, you only name Congressman James Mitchell Ashley a Republican from Ohio as the one who introduced the 13th Amendment. However, I found this is on John B. Henderson page in Wikipedia -- a United States Senator representing a slave state, Henderson co-authored and co-sponsored the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution permanently prohibiting slavery in the United States. Henderson's original proposal, made January 11, 1864, was submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee and on February 10, 1865, the judiciary committee presented the Senate with a proposal combining the drafts of Congressman James Mitchell Ashley (Republican, Ohio), Congressman James Falconer Wilson, (Republican, Iowa), and Henderson.[1]

John B. Henderson in his elder years. The 13th Amendment was approved by the U.S. Congress on January 31, 1865, and was signed by President Abraham Lincoln the following day. Lincoln was assassinated before the amendment was ratified by the State of Georgia on December 6, 1865.

The article on John B. Henderson says he started as a Democrat, then in the midst of the Civil War beginning, he finished the term of a Unionist. And it does not tell exactly when he became a Republican but it seems to be sometime before introducing the 13th Amendment.

I hope you can up date the 13th Amendment to include this information. Thanks.

Jerry Woods

History Buff from TN (talk) 16:58, 22 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I just read through the 'History' section of Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and it appears all of this information is already there. The introduction of and passage of the amendment to Congress was not a straightforward process, and it is described there. Let me know if there is something you specifically want changed, or you can use that page's talk page. --CapitalR (talk) 21:51, 22 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The 20th amendment article notes that if the assination of Roosevelt in 1933 would have been successful John Nance Gardner would have become president on March 4 1933, I suspect at the very least there would have been a court question as the amendment did not take effect until 15 October 1933

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add to the first amendment that Congress will not make any law that respects an establishment of religion. Right now, Wikipedia has the first amendment listed as "Protects the freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of the press, as well as the right to assemble and petition the government." It should say "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion^[1] but protects the free exercise of the people to practice religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the right to assemble as well as petition the government." Cited source can be found here: http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html Thanks 74.70.151.234 (talk) 18:36, 3 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done. This page is only for requests to this template. Make that request at First Ammendment. Also, your addition is included in the text "freedom of religion". gwickwire | Leave a message 19:12, 3 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Under the 2nd amendment it should read "the right of the people" as it clearly states in the constitution. It's clear as day. 166.147.72.152 (talk) 03:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not done: Thanks, but unless I'm misinterpreting your request, it refers to content in the article Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, rather than this page, which is just a template for the navigation box containing the article hyperlinks. Second Amendment to the United States Constitution does not appear to be edit-protected at this time. Begoon ^talk 05:23, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The second amendment should read 'the right of the people to bear arms'. 139.60.210.130 (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not done: The second amendment is only referred to in this template as the "Second Amendment to the United States Constitution", and all of the other articles and amendments linked are worded exactly the same way. If you would like to make an edit to the article about the second amendment, the article is not protected and can be found here. If you would like to discuss possible changes to that article, please discuss them here. --ElHef (Meep?) 01:44, 1 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The 27th amendment passed in 1989, not 1789... 108.30.241.114 (talk) 10:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not done: Where do you see this date? This is a template and has nothing about the dates amendments were passed. Furthermore, from a look at the article itself, it says "It was submitted to the states for ratification in September 1789 and became part of the United States Constitution in May 1992". So try 1992? Cannolis (talk) 12:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please edit the first sentence in this article to include the word Congress following the word prohibits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChickenMut (talk • contribs) 01:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

per discussion at MOS:ACCESSBILITY, I have undone the overstyling. Frietjes (talk) 14:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like to see the link for Amendments I-X get linked to the right place, not the Bill of Rights. 98.118.159.164 (talk) 03:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Unclear what the "right place" is to you. EvergreenFir (talk) Please ((re)) 06:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would like to propose having the Reconstruction amendments within their own sub-section, similar to the Bill of Rights sub-section. --HugoHelp (talk) 02:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@HugoHelp: I have added the RA article link, placing it in the ‘History’ section. I have also moved the BoR article link there as well. Doing so eliminates the division of amendments 1–10 from the others, and avoids creating a new subdivision of amendments 13–15. Drdpw (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Drdpw: Thank you for adding the link for the Reconstruction Amendments, it was the only major oversight in this template that I noticed. As for the removal of the sub-sections - I prefer the template the way it was before, as the Bill of Rights and the Reconstruction Amendments are usually grouped as sub-sets of the amendments. --HugoHelp (talk) 01:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]